I refer to the piece entitled Nitty-gritty of religious choice in which your columnist KJ John refers to the article 'Is religion a matter of taste?' which appeared in The Star on July 11.
With all due respect, I found Dr Al-Attas' allegory of religion as a matter of taste to be off the mark. The issue is not whether religion is a matter of personal taste but rather whether religion is a matter of personal conscience.
We are all aware how one's conscience may not necessarily be reflective of one's actions or current beliefs. Hence when we do something which we do not feel is right, we experience remorse; some refer to this feeling as a guilty conscience. Clearly, we can no more decide on our innermost feelings, that is to say our conscience, than we can will our hearts to stop beating.
When viewed in this manner, it should be apparent that those of us who claim that the practice of religion is unequivocally a matter of personal conscience are neither relegating nor denigrating religion in any way.
Dr Al-Attas also fails to take into account that while truth may be static, a person's perception of the truth is dynamic and subject to change. Thus, on one day a person may genuinely believe that Islam represents the eternal truth and several months later the same person may be entirely convinced that Buddhism is a more accurate representation of that same eternal truth.
That a person wishes to officially change their religion does not mean they take the matter of religion flippantly. On the contrary, a person prepared to take the bold step of changing religions often faces the prospect of personal hardship. This is certainly true in the context of Malaysia where some, such as Kamariah Ali, have even undergone imprisonment at the hands of the religious authorities. Given the possible repercussions, the decision to overtly change one's faith is not a decision most would take lightly.
Finally, I am rather perplexed by Dr Al-Attas' stance on apostasy. On the one hand, he states that 'he in whom Islam never takes hold, has never been a Muslim regardless of whether his name is Muhammad or Abdullah'. He then goes on to call on the faithful to prevent religion from being treated 'like a sport, music, fashion, and food, by citing unqualified freedom as the foundation of the articles of faith'.
In an earlier piece which appeared in The Star , another representative of Ikim, Dr Wan Azhar Wan Ahmad, had proffered that apostasy is a crime under Islam. While we require clarity on this issue, Dr Al-Attas meanders around the definition of apostasy instead of making a clear stance on whether people such as Lina Joy should face consequences, and if so what consequences and why, for openly declaring their personal convictions.
